Do host programs ever really change?

[original flipper]

HI

I thought in leiu of a few post's that kinda ask a similar question but for me miss the point of the question: 'developing to suit user needs'.

I mainly use XT but am dabbling with Live and to a lesser degree SX with T2 really not being used at all.

The question that strikes me is if these programs either DO seem to move along by user input or are they only really being moulded by a developers vision?

What I do find highly frustrating in nearly all audio/midi sequencing host programs is either the poor implimentation of a piano-roll and how midi is inputed/edited/manipulated/viewed a similar showing for automation and/or a GUI interface that somehow is lacking in either it's ability to be moved to suit a users needs/takes advantage of dual monitors or is simply unfriendly to any kind of user adjustment.

Maybe my points are personal but I do wonder why/when/if Cubase SXV5 turns up it will pretty well be much of a much-ness(?) of everything that has gone before albeit with a few more hundered features bolted on that currently aren't needed but which the consumer will be told he/she needs.

Does a radical change ever make sense and how would that message 'get through'?

If I did think host 'X' was perfect I would be quite happy to use it until the next jump in o/s and hardware caused me to need the developer to update it for obvious reasons.

Getting back to the original question - do developers of host/seq programs develop to improve a basic feature set to a point which nears optimum?

Do they have their own personal vision which may or may not preclude the majority user?

Do they even have a mission statement like 'Gerry (The McFcukin) McGuire?

Or is it a development road map?

For goodness sake, look at how usefull it was for Wusikstation development.



Flipper.

[brambos]

Getting back to the original question - do developers of host/seq programs develop to improve a basic feature set to a point which nears optimum?

Do they have their own personal vision which may or may not preclude the majority user?

Well, I can't answer all your questions but I seriously doubt whether it is possible for any developer to make the perfect host for its users. The only way to do that is by creating your own host.

So, with that out of the way, what options does the developer actually have?

1. Create a super flexible and customizable host
2. Target a host at the needs of a very specific group of musicians.

The first approach seems like a good one, except that it most likely results in a steep learning curve and bloated feature-set because the host is supposed to be able to do everything for everyone.
People will complain about it being hard to learn and the chance of it having bugs or problems on certain systems increases.

The second approach is more difficult for the developer. The target audience recognises the benefits, but others won't understand its limitations or concepts and complain about it on forums like this one. I can tell from experience that it can be really offputting - especially for indy-developers.

For Tunafish I decided I wanted to design the "Hammerhead" of VST-hosts. Simple, accessible, easy to learn, and with a limited but comprehensible feature set. I chose this approach because in my experience there wasn't a really simple entry-level (no bells 'n whistles) host available anymore.

Some people will appreciate its simplicity, others will simply say it's too limited to be taken seriously - not understanding that it isn't my goal to compete with Fruity, Tracktion or eXT in the first place. (I'm aiming for the spot below those sequencers and I'm planning to stick with that concept.)

Anyway.. to get back to your question: no, unless you develop your own host, I don't think anyone will make exactly the sequencer you need. All you can do is find the one that matches your requirements or music-making style best and live with its shortcomings.

Anyway.. it's an interesting question you raise, and I'm curious how the discussion will develop.

cheers,

Bram

[nuffink]

What I do find highly frustrating in nearly all audio/midi sequencing host programs is either the poor implimentation of a piano-roll and how midi is inputed/edited/manipulated/viewed a similar showing for automation and/or a GUI interface that somehow is lacking in either it's ability to be moved to suit a users needs/takes advantage of dual monitors or is simply unfriendly to any kind of user adjustment.

Yamaha's, seemingly forgotten, OPT standard allowed developers to design their own piano-roll and controller lanes. I thought that was a top idea. The ability to control chords rather than individual notes in ChordSpace opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities.

[Caleb]

Yeah - I was hopeful of the OPT standard. However, it didn't really go anywhere in the end.

Caleb

[shamann]

Here's a list of the hosts I have and use for music creation (excluding hosts like Sound Forge, Synthedit and VSTHost which serve different functions):

Audiomulch
EnergyXT
Bidule
Vaz Modular
Tracktion v1.6
Tunafish
Kristal
VSTSeq
(I'm sure I'm forgetting one)

Here's what I know about them from what I've observed over the years:
- They are/were all designed and developed by independent small businesses, and small development teams (1-3 programmers).
- They all share features, but also have unique features.
- Most are aimed at fairly specific purposes, rather than trying to be a solution for everyone.
- For those that are/were independent, development is based on the vision of the developers, but reacts to and often implements user feedback very quickly (within reason).
- For those that were once independent but are no longer, development was far more reactive to the userbase back in the day.
- I have made several feature requests in several of the above hosts that were implemented and implemented quickly. I know of many other users who can say the same.
- Those hosts out of the above that have moved more towards the "trying to please everyone" path have become increasingly difficult to use casually, and have done so at the expense of development of some of the unique features of the host.
- The hosts that have not tried to please everybody don't, generating public whinging here and there.

So, that said, I lost my point.

Personally, I choose to gravitate towards the independents, and towards things that offer a fair amount of unique features. I like using lots of different apps if that's where I'll find useful things. People who gravitate towards all-in-one "this is my DAW" kinds of applications seem to want everything in one place. I can understand that, as more and more I use less and less that doesn't work nicely with Audiomulch. But that's a question of interoperability more than one of feature bloat. I would never want MIDI sequencing in Audiomulch, but I wouldn't object to MIDI routing, so that other tools can take up those duties if needed. From the other side, I see a lot of requests in the EnergyXT forum that start with "you know what's missing to make this the cubarse killer..."

It's good we have enough choice to accommodate both sides. It's bad when they begin to encroach upon each other, because then we have less choice. Nothing is going to please everyone, so not everything should try.

I think what Bidule did recently was a very bold move. They made Bidule a VST plugin so that they could bypass requests to implement more extensive sequencing facilities and similar such features. That's a line in the sand I wish more developers made. But Bidule has changed and been refined over time, and relatively quickly, as have similar hosts. The all-in-one-for-everybody-and-the-pros-too packages, by their very nature, can't change as much, or at least not quickly, because all-in-one includes backwards compatibility, extensive hardware integration, etc. And all-in-one also means retaining familiar ideas, both good ones and bad ones. Could you imagine the hell Steinberg would catch if they suddenly announced a radical shift in sequencing facilities and the removal of all current implementations?

(hey look, it's the big long post thread)

[corman rapeblio]

Hey Brambos.. this is strange, I made some of my favourite old tunes on Moonfish, and Hammerhead.. why is Hammerhead so buggy on XP I can't get any of my old kits to load up.. kinda bites.. but man if only you knew how many literally hundred of tracks recorded to tape using your stuff.. and a lot of it wasn't even really beat-centric music.. a lot of it was looped texture based..I owe you a spiritual debt of sorts.. when I go home I'm getting all the best stuff ofF the tapes I'm gonna BANG i t into the computer and then record the best stuff BACK to a teac reel to reel... does this concern you? no notat all just wanted to say thank you for Hammerhead and Moonfish..!!

[brambos]

Hey Brambos.. this is strange, I made some of my favourite old tunes on Moonfish, and Hammerhead.. why is Hammerhead so buggy on XP I can't get any of my old kits to load up..

It should work Ok. I've recently been jamming with it on XP. But ofcourse HH was around long before people had even invented the name XP.. when Win '95 was still considered high end

does this concern you? no notat all just wanted to say thank you for Hammerhead and Moonfish..!!

You're welcome! great to hear you've enjoyed it so much!

cheers!

Bram

[Joseph Burrell]

I'll throw my 2 cents into this conversation because I may be coming at it from a different angle, although, my sentiments closely resemble some of those posted above....

As someone who currently works very closely with a software/host developer I can tell you that we take each users request for features or improved functionality seriously. However, there are many pitfalls to be avoided/overcome with this process. What you can't possibly do is invest time programming in every single feature or improvement that everyone suggests. You'd never enter a stable development cycle if that were the case and you'd end up with a product solely tailored to one persons way of fuctioning. Let's be frank, people develop 'pay for' software in order to provide themselves with income. If you isolate the majority of your userbase by incorporating features for a select few, then you run the risk of losing those users. New features and even changes or improvements to existing features need to be carefully planned out as to how they will be implemented and if those changes will be accessible logically to a number of people and will provide noticeable benefit to their workflow. That is the problem I have encounted with many programs on the market. They do not present the average person with a conductive workflow processes. You have to 'work around' many failings in the interface and in the product in general and envelope yourself in a process that is forced on you by the program. This should never happen. I think this happens largely because bigger companies do not understand nor do they plan out how changes to their program and interfaces will affect the user, instead, they accept the fact that people will adopt to the standard that they put out on the market. This is the biggest thing users should rebel against. However, keeping all that in mind, I think users need to work with the developer of the software to intelligently plan out how features are best implemented and if some FR's can be largely ignored because the benefits do not impact the larger community of users. And another failing is the fact that often times features are largely slapped onto programs in a fashion that ignores other failings and therefor only further complicates the program. Features should be transparent to those that don't need them, or have a clearly outline process. I can't count the number of times that I've given up on a program because features got in the way of workflow. That should not happen.

And that brings up where I've seen larger developers fail. They are so intent on bringing this or that feature that impact such a small amount of people that they largly ignore bugs or imperfection in the current version of the program. Users requesting fixes often get kicked to the curb in favor of feature requests simply because they've already got you, and they feel that only new features will gain a larger user base. I hope and pray that this isn't the case and that what users really want is a solid program with solid features and with a track record of handlingly problems quickly. There's nothing wrong with adding new features in, but equal time should be put forth addressing current concerns in a program.

We've endevoured in our little market to spend large amounts of time studying how each change will affect the user and if positive impact will be felt by the majority rather than a select few. Often times, smaller FR's will make it into the program, but they're often presented in a way that is transparent to those who do not need them. That should be the standard, and I think that's what most small companies do, since they can't afford to lose their share of users to another developer.

That's one reason why I love KVR. There's a lot going on here that I have to chuckle at sometimes, but its the support of the small developer that keeps me here. I'm that way. I'd much rather buy energyXT 50 times than give a larger unresponsive company my money. And its important that there's a thriving community that feels that way.

Wow, I hope all that made sense...

[shamann]

If you isolate the majority of your userbase by incorporating features for a select few, then you run the risk of losing those users.

Interesting points, Joseph, and I'm happy to see that you stuck to the long post requirement. On the point of appealing to a broad userbase, I agree with you to a point. When you sell things you want to sell things to as many people as you can. But, I'd add only within reason. From the outset in any commercial venture, you have to limit your market. An example: my father works for a company that sells/installs nothing but asparagus sorting machines. While they try to appeal to their select customer-base as much as possible, they would not venture into something like bean sorting machines. Different market, different requirements. Their success depends on finding their niche and serving it well.

If you look at a lot of hosts, the markets often are blurred until you get the situation you described with the hosts that the large companies put out. There is a difference between the needs of a commercial studio and a live DJ, but too often those differences are ignored with hosts, and so each segment is targeted together, but only half-served. Look at Tracktion: the market that bought into it upon its initial release does not look like the market Mackie have chosen to target with v2. Maybe appealing to a broader market will pay off for Mackie, but I've observed a fair amount of dissatisfaction expressed from all sides in the change (too much that from one side, not enough this from the other). Similar changes have happened with every new version of Live. It looks less and less like what it was initially, and more and more like an interesting peer of the standard host-type (Cubase/Sonar/Logic/etc).

Overture (I'm reasonably sure you work with Geniesoft, yes?) is an interesting example (and one that isn't mentioned enough), as, while it could be used easily by the FL Studio customer, it obviously isn't marketed at them. And I would guess that when VST was implemented, it wasn't done so to meet the demands of someone like me, who relies heavily on live/real-time sequencing and the modular routing of several hosts. Nor should it. I know where to go when I want an excellent VST-hosting score editor/sequencer.

An aside question, why is Overture listed in KVR's database as not past beta and not having a demo?

[nuffink]

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way.
The creation of an open standard for plugins has led to the explosion of creativity that we see here. It could be that instead of attempting to define what we want from a perfect host, we attempt to define the absolute minimum that that host could be.
This, together with an API for things like mixers and sequencers, might lead music software in as yet unimagined directions.
EXT appears (to me at least) to be moving in this direction.

[Joseph Burrell]

shamann, yes, I forgot to address that point. We did exactly that with our latest version of Overture. It was decided that there was a target audience for the program and the entire workflow and feature set was driven in that direction and continues to be improved along those lines to this day. It keeps us focused on what we feel are the most important aspects of our program and thus we seek every oportunity to build on those strengths.

You make an excellent point about that. There is a blur between the offerings of most sequencing products out there. They each and everyone seem to try and be the 'end-all-for-everyone' and in the process of aiming for that, lose sight of what made people appreciate it in the first place.

I won't deny that I'm pretty dissatisfied with where a lot of programs have ended up. I won't name them, because it isn't fair for me to do so. But as the programs age they seem to all be aiming for the same thing, and their individual characteristics seem to dissapear.

The exception being Jorgen's eXT (IMO.) This program has matured very well from its Massiva days and actually seems to be heading away from the norm into uncharted waters where I would only place Bidule as its nearest competition at being completely unique among hosts.

You're right though, greater focus on your target user base and not being affraid to strike out in a new direction should be the offer of the day. Unfortunately, money does seem to have a way of getting in the way of those aspirations. I can only hope that for every product that goes the way of mainstream, that there's someone else out there willing to innovate.

... I probably should have Ben update that Overture information. Thanks.

[fabi]

I can agree with much of what has been said.

One thing that makes matters even more complicated is that although technically you can take your vst plugins with you, when you want to move to a different host, every single host seems to implement the vst standard slightly differently, leading to all kinds of strange behavior.
If a company advertises its host as being vst compatible, please make sure it actually IS vst compatible - before adding more and more and more 'features'.

Looking at the new FX, FL6 will have to offer, in all honesty, I am rather unimpressed. I really think more time should be spent on assuring vst compatibility and fixing the dodgy audio clips, that still have trouble opening large audio files, countless times, making it largely unusable for mastering to me. Which is a shame, because FL is the only host I own (eXT, audiomulch, T1 are the others) that can run DX plugins - and I only have the DX version of Ozone3...

having mentioned the hosts i own - i wish the lines weren't as blurred - if some of them concentrated on fewer features, implemented without bugs, establishing their niche, ALL of them would become more useful to me...

[kuniklo]

After trying at least 5 hosts in the last year I think I can pretty safely say it really doesn't matter that much. Pick one and get to know it well enough that you stop thinking about it and start making music.

This also applies to instruments.

[fabi]

After trying at least 5 hosts in the last year I think I can pretty safely say it really doesn't matter that much. Pick one and get to know it well enough that you stop thinking about it and start making music.

This also applies to instruments.

which five (or more) did you try?

[Wicker Man]

But if you are not impressed with others piano roll and midi...check out FL Studio, probably the best out there from your original question.

Someone said above that they are not fussed with FL6's FX...well they can be improved by plugins also, but I think the FX are fine.